| name | crim-literature-positioning |
| description | Use when positioning a Criminology (ASC / Wiley) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a contribution to the field's live debates, not a citation pile. Criminology readers expect engagement with the relevant theoretical tradition and the closest prior empirical work across the field's many disciplines. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review. |
Literature Positioning (crim-literature-positioning)
A common reason criminology papers stall is that they read as "another dataset" rather than a move in a
theoretical debate. Positioning is therefore not throat-clearing — it places the paper where a
general criminology audience can see the open question and your move on it.
When to trigger
- Drafting or revising the introduction and the "contribution" paragraph
- A reviewer said you "missed key work" or "don't engage the theory"
- Your empirics are solid but the paper doesn't connect to a criminological debate
- You need to distinguish your contribution from the closest prior papers
How Criminology wants the literature engaged
- Engage the debate, not a pile of citations. Identify the live disagreement or open question —
e.g., is desistance driven by cognitive change or social bonds? do hot-spot effects displace or
diffuse? does procedural justice cause compliance? Cite the works that define it.
- Name the theoretical tradition. Locate the paper within (or against) a recognizable theory —
social control, social learning, strain/GST, routine activity, life-course/age-graded informal
control, labeling, deterrence, procedural justice, social disorganization/collective efficacy.
- Two audiences at once. Satisfy the specialists (you know the frontier) and the
interdisciplinary readership (a developmental psychologist and a criminal-justice scholar both see
why it matters).
- Name the gap precisely. Not "little is known" — say what is contested, mismeasured,
confounded, or untested, and why resolving it advances theory.
- Pre-empt the obvious objection. Reviewers are expert; name the strongest rival mechanism and say
how your design adjudicates it (hand off to
crim-research-design).
Cross-field engagement (a Criminology demand)
| If your paper is… | also engage… |
|---|
| a developmental/life-course study | the criminal-career and desistance debates, not just psychology |
| a neighborhoods-and-crime study | social disorganization / collective-efficacy theory and spatial work |
| an experiment on policing or courts | deterrence and procedural-justice/legitimacy theory |
| a measurement contribution | the substantive theories that will use the measure |
Anti-patterns
- A "literature dump" with no organizing theoretical debate
- Engaging only one discipline's literature when the journal is interdisciplinary
- Strawmanning prior theory, or hiding the closest competitor paper
- Self-citation that breaks anonymity (the main document is anonymized — see
crim-submission)
- Claiming "first to study" when the contribution is incremental
Positioning pass for Criminology
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the crime/justice process, measurement validity, research design, and policy consequence; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: criminology reviewers who expect theory-linked crime, justice, or harm mechanisms plus transparent measurement.
- Do the pass: Build a three-column map: incumbent conversation, unresolved tension, and this manuscript's delta; include one sibling-venue omission that would make a referee doubt the fit.
- Return a ledger: give
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.
- Sibling guard: compare against Justice Quarterly for applied justice, Journal of Quantitative Criminology for methods focus, Social Problems for broader sociological framing; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
- Stop condition: do not give submission-ready advice until the pack's
resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.
Output format
【Debate】the live disagreement / open question
【Tradition】the theory the paper engages or challenges
【Key works】the 3-6 that define it (incl. cross-field)
【Gap】what is contested / mismeasured / confounded / untested
【Move】how this paper changes the debate
【Strongest rival】and how the design will adjudicate it
【Next】crim-theory-building
Supplementary resources
